Friday, January 29, 2016

What if there were a space agency that made it affordable for even the poorest nations on the globe to participate in a vigorous and inspirational international space program. Such a space organization could also allow up to eight citizens from each member nation to participate as astronauts in an international astronaut corp. Funds from this international space agency could also be used to contribute towards the development and deployment of space telescopes and space probes primarily being funded and developed by other space organizations.

I'll call this proposed global space agency the:

INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMY AND SPACE ORGANIZATION (IASO).

NASA's current funding level is over $19 billion a year (less than 0.5% of annual US Federal expenditures). Russia spends about $5.6 billion a year on its space efforts. But I propose a membership fee for each nation participating in the IASO of only $50 million per year. Such a low annual membership fee for an international space program would make it affordable for even the poorest nations on Earth to participate. The small annual fee also wouldn't be large enough to significantly hurt funding levels for national space programs being financed by some of the wealthier member countries.

But the purpose of the IASO would not be to replace existing national space programs. Instead, the IASO would utilize the existing resources and infrastructure of the various government space agencies and private commercial space companies. Doing so would increase demand for the products and services of private aerospace companies while minimizing IASO cost for operating their space program. This could also allow IASO astronauts from all participating nations to quickly become part of a vigorous pioneering space program.

The countries most likely to want to participate in the IASO would be those nations that are already operating manned and unmanned space programs. That's because the products and services that the IASO is most likely to utilize will come from commercial vendors used to support the current national space programs. The United States, of course, not only has a civilian government space program (NASA) put also has several private space companies (ULA, Space X, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada, Bigelow Aerospace, Blue Origin, etc.) with various levels of aerospace capabilities that could be utilized by the IASO for their space efforts. And, of course, Europe and Russia and nations like China, India, and Japan could also provide extensive space services for IASO efforts.

The ISS (International Space Station) program currently has the participation of five space agencies and 26 nations. These countries could serve as the core nations for the IASO. Since each participating nation will have equal status and votes in the IASO, including other nations with existing space launch capability such as China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Israel, South Korea and Iran could add some voting balance to an initially heavily European dominated organization.

But there are other nations with emerging space programs that could gradually be added to the IASO over the years such as: Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa, Nigeria, Taiwan, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Of course, there would probably be more than a dozen other European nations that enjoy the status and excitement of joining such an international space organization. Its also not difficult to imagine that economically advanced countries like Australia and New Zealand might also want to join such an affordable space program.

In principal, the IASO could add two member nations every year in order to maintain institutional stability. This could engendering excitement each year for the pair of nations lucky enough to be allowed to join the international organization that particular year.

Philosophically, I believe that at least 60% of the IASO budget should
be spent on its astronaut corp. And each member nation should be allowed to
have up to four adult men and four adult women in the IASO astronaut
program. After two years of membership, the IASO should guarantee a
member nation that at least one of their national astronauts will
be deployed into space
every year.

Its not difficult to imagine an IASO consisting of at least 40 permanent members quite early in its formation. At $50 million per member, such an international space agency could have a $2 billion annual budget with at least $1.2 billion a year specifically dedicated to human spaceflight related activities.

Initially, crewed IASO astronaut missions to LEO could simply require purchasing tickets to ride aboard private Commercial Crew vehicles to private commercial space stations. Bigelow Aerospace plans to charge between $26 million to $37 million for a 10 to 60 day stay aboard one of its BA-330 space habitats. But a 40 member IASO would be able spend a couple a hundred million a year to purchase its own space habitat perhaps from Bigelow, or Boeing (SLS propellant tank derived habitat), or from Russia's RSC Energia. At least 30% of the IASO budget could also be utilized to purchase and deploy habitats at LEO, the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, the surface
of
the Moon, Mars orbit, the surface of Mars, and beyond through private aerospace companies.

A notional 16 day IASO missions to an IASO owned LEO habitat would give IASO astronauts launch and landing experience aboard a space craft with at least 14 days of experience inside of a microgravity habitat, plus at least one or more Flexcraft and pressure suit excursions outside of the habitat modules. Such spaceflight experience might even make some IASO astronauts desirable to participate in future beyond LEO missions conducted by other major space agencies such as NASA and ESA.

Orion MPCV for deep space missions (Credit: Wikipedia)

The IASO could take part in beyond LEO missions conducted by NASA or ESA or other major space agencies by offering to contribute $150 million for every IASO astronaut allowed to participate in the mission. NASA currently plans to send four astronauts on beyond LEO missions aboard a spacecraft (the Orion) that could accommodate six astronauts. If two IASO astronauts were allowed to join the mission then NASA could cut the cost of the crewed mission by $300 million. A pair of IASO astronauts, on the other hand, would be able to take part in a beyond LEO mission for just $300 million.

Once the age of water and propellant depots arrive, commercial companies could provide IASO astronauts with frequent and affordable access to habitats on the surface of the Moon and perhaps even Mars. Eventually, the IASO could simply purchase their own habitats from private companies on the lunar and martian surface.

The IASO could eventually purchase a pair of regolith wall shielded lunar habitats from private aerospace companies which could give IASO astronauts the ability to remain on the lunar surface for months or for years.

Other IASO funding could be contributed to international organizations involved in locating potentially dangerous asteroids and comets that could someday imperil the Earth and towards the development and deployment of new types of space telescopes and exploratory probes.

So basically, the IASO could help other existing space agencies to finance their manned and unmanned missions while also utilizing the services and infrastructure of private space companies to minimize the cost of their own space program. And this could allow a lot more nations, and the astronauts of those nations, to participate in the exploration and pioneering of the Moon and Mars and the rest of the New Frontier!

Thursday, January 14, 2016

The US Congress passed an omnibus spending bill last December requiring NASA to develop a prototype deep space habitation (DSH) module no later than 2018. It also requires NASA to provide Congress with a report on how the enactment of this bill is being complied with by the first half of 2016.

NASA has viewed a DSH as a necessary component for safely transporting humans from cis-lunar space to Mars orbit in the 2030's and also as a gateway to the lunar surface and beyond. The Earth-Moon Lagrange points EML1 and EML2 have most often been proposed as the place where a Deep Space Habitat should be deployed.

EML2 (L2) has the advantage of requiring the lowest delta-v from LEO in order to deploy the DSH into a halo orbit around the Lagrange point. But crewed journeys from LEO to L2 also has the disadvantage of taking as long as 8 days to reach the habitat if the low delta v of 3.43 km/s is to be taken advantage of. Such a long journey would expose astronauts to two to four times as much cosmic radiation as journeying to EML1. A higher delta-v of 3.95 km/s could transport a crew to EML2 in just four days. But this would be higher than the 3.77 km/s delta-v requirement to transport crews from LEO to EML1. EML1 also has the advantage of a fast 2 day journey from LEO at 4.41 km/s. Such fast journeys would reduce radiation exposure while also reducing the chance of traveling during a major solar event in half.

The Earth-Moon Lagrange points (Credit the Artemis Project)

Another, long term, disadvantage of a DSH at EML2 is that radio transmissions between the habitat and Earth could interfere with future radio telescopes deployed on the back side of the Moon in order to avoid radio interference from the Earth's surface, Earth orbit, and space craft traveling to and from the Moon.

Delta- V budgets between LEO and EML1 or EML2

LEO to EML1 (~ 2 days) - 4.41 km/s dv

LEO to EML1 (~ 4 days) - 3.77 km/s dv

EML1 to Lunar Surface (~3 days) - 2.52 km/s dv

Lunar Surface to EML1 (~3 days) - 2.52 km/s dv

LEO to EML2 (~ 8 days) - 3.43 km/s dv

LEO to EML2 (~ 4 days) - 3.95 km/s dv

EML2 to Lunar Surface (~3 days) - 2.52 km/s dv

Lunar Surface to EML2 (~3 days) - 2.52 km/s dv

Aesthetically, a Deep Space Hab positioned at EML1 would probably have the most spectacular views within cis-lunar space. An astronaut at EML2 would view an Earth that is slightly smaller than viewed from the front side of the Moon while the view of Earth at EML1 would be slightly larger than is seen from the lunar surface. Both EML1 and EML2 would view a Moon that is titanic in size relative to its view from the Earth. But EML2 would only be able to view the back side of the Moon while EML1 would only be able to view the front side of the Moon.

Because of the reduced time and radiation exposure to get there, the fact that an EML1 habitat wouldn't interfere with radio telescopes on the back side of the Moon, plus the aesthetic view, I think NASA should deploy the Deep Space Hab at EML1 rather than at EML2.

The relative visual size of the Moon and Earth: at the top, the view of the Moon from the surface of the Earth or low Earth orbit; second from the top, the view of the Earth from the surface of the Moon; third from the top, the view of the Earth from EML1; at the bottom, the view of the Moon from EML1.

The primary purposes for an EML1 (L1) Deep Space Habitat (DSH) should be to:

1. Serve as a gateway to the lunar surface. Astronauts traveling from the Earth or from the lunar surface could dock their spacecraft at the EML1 habitat, taking advantage of the larger accommodations at the DSH while transferring from one vehicle to another.

2. Serve as a storm shelter during the occurrence of major solar
events. This will probably require at least 30 cm of water shielding for
the areas within the habitat that the astronauts will be occupying. Major solar events can last for several minutes or up to several hours.

3. Serve as a maintenance and repair station
for reusable lunar shuttles (ETLV) and orbital transfer vehicles. Flex Craft docked at the DSH could be utilized for
extravehicular repairs to nearby water/propellant depots and associated
solar arrays at EML1.

4.
Test the effectiveness of various levels of water shielding required to mitigate cosmic
radiation and potentially brain damaging heavy nuclei. In theory, 30 cm of water would be enough shielding to to stop the penetration of the heavy nuclei component of cosmic rays, reduce the annual exposure of cosmic radiation in general to less than 25 Rem per year, while also significantly mitigating the effects of major solar events. While an even thicker shielding of water could reduce cosmic radiation exposure, a minimal amount of shielding will be required to minimize the mass for crewed interplanetary vehicles.

5. Test the integrity and reliability of the pressurized habitat structure which could also be used for habitats on the surface of the Moon and Mars and for rotating interplanetary artificial gravity habitats.

Its probably the intent of Congress for NASA to design the habitat module that will transport humans safely to Mars. But because of the inherently deleterious physical and psychological effects of a microgravity environment on human beings, its unlikely that any microgravity habitat will ever be able to accomplish this goal.

Under microgravity conditions, astronauts can lose between 1 to 1.5% of their bone mass in a single month and without regular exercise, astronauts can lose up to 20% of their muscle mass in just 5 to 11 days. A microgravity environment can reduce cardiovascular fitness-- possibly increasing the chances of heart attaches. And vision problems of varying degrees of severity can occur-- especially in older men. The infected
spray from the cough or the sneeze an ill person on board floats in the
air instead of falling to the floor, enhancing the spread of infection
aboard ship-- especially in a confined environment. Unfortunately, blood flow redistribution in a microgravity environment can effect medicines ingested or injected into the human body to treat illnesses.

Returning
to Earth after a few months aboard the ISS, the blood pressure of some
astronauts drops abnormally low when they move from a lying position to
a sitting or standing position. Some astronauts even have problems
standing up, walking, and turning and stabilizing their gaze.

Added to the serious problems above, there are other annoying problems in a microgravity environment that could enhance discomfort and psychological stress aboard ship such as:

1. Weight loss: the less strenuous conditions diminish appetite, resulting
in weigh loss which could become excessive if astronauts don't exercise
and eat regularly.

2. A degraded sense of smell and taste: your favorite foods could taste a little different under microgravity

3. Clumping of sweat and tears and perspiration: there's no gravity to force trickles of water to run off the human body

4. Facial and speech distortions: the face becomes puffy and the voice tone and pitch becomes more nasal. This could cause some to misinterpret another individuals expression, possibly causing tension between two individuals aboard a multiyear mission.

5.
Increased flatulence: since digestive gasses no longer rise towards the
mouth, their is an increase in gas being expelled through the posterior
orifice

The problems listed above could be viewed as
only a minor inconvenience on short missions into space. But during long
interplanetary journeys lasting months or years, such problems could
be annoying enough to enhance stress and increase tension aboard ship.

It might be possible to eliminate all of these deleterious microgravity related problems aboard an interplanetary vehicle by simply rotating pressurized habitats in counter balancing pairs to produce a significant level of simulated gravity. The additional benefit of having two pressurized modules is that it also provides a back up module in case there are serious life threatening malfunctions at the other habitat module.

Pressurized habitats capable of being used in space and on the
surface of the Moon or Mars could also be used as counter balancing
habitats for rotating spacecraft and space stations that produce some
levels of artificial gravity. And development cost could be greatly reduced if the basic habitat pressurized tank can be used for microgravity habitats, low gravity surface habitats, and for artificial gravity habitats.

Internal configuration of a lunar habitat derived from SLS propellant tank technology. A regolith wall composed of kevlar sandwiched between eight rigid
aluminum panels is deployed around the habitat cylinder and filled with
regolith to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, micrometeorites,
and fluctuating temperatures on the lunar surface. The airlocks are derived from ETLV propellant tank technology.

NASA could significantly reduce development cost by
utilizing SLS propellant tanks for both a DSH but also for
lunar and martian habitats. The lunar and martian regolith habs that
I've previously proposed would use an SLS propellant tank as a
pressurized habitat. Once the habitat module is properly placed on the
lunar surface, a kevlar regolith wall sandwiched between eight three
meter wide aluminum panels would automatically deploy, allowing a
lunar backhoe to deposit regolith shielding within the two meter
cavity between the outer wall and the inner cylindrical wall.

Since crewed interplanetary voyages to Mars probably won't take place until the 2030's, serious funding by NASA for the development of artificial gravity habitats for interplanetary journeys probably won't have to start until the early 2020's. However, this doesn't mean that a DSH habitat couldn't be designed to function as a microgravity habitat, as a low gravity habitat, and as a simulated gravity habitat in order to reduce cost for both the cis-lunar program in the 2020's and for the Mars program in the 2030's.

If such habitats are to be used for long interplanetary journeys in the future, they must be as comfortably spacious as possible while also minimizing mass. NASA is evaluating several types of potential Deep Space Habitats derived from current technology:

The ISS derived habitats only provide between 2.8 meters to 3 meters cubed of habitable volume per tonne. The Bigelow BA-330 would provide significantly more volume, between 14 m3 and 17 meters cubed of habitable volume but within severely confined areas. The SLS propellant tank derived habitats, however, would provide between 20 m3 and 23 m3 of habitable space per tonne (35% to 64% more habitable volume per tonne). Since SLS propellant tanks will already be in production for SLS launches, manufacturing more tanks for Deep Space Habitats and for surface habitats for the Moon and eventually for Mars should greatly reduce development cost for a Deep Space Hab.

The SLS Block B with its upper stage would probably only be able to deploy about 30 to 32 tonnes of mass to EML1, allowing it to easily deploy an SLS propellant tank derived DSH to EML1.

An SLS propellant tank technology derived DSH @ EML1. There are four docking ports for four large vehicles. There are also four docking ports for four personal Flex Craft vehicles. There is also one crew hatch for pressure suit excursions. Twin solar panels provide power for the DSH with a central heat radiator extending between them. A crewed MPCV and a crewed ETLV-2 are docked at the DSH in preparation for an ETLV visit to an outpost on the lunar surface. A lone floating Flex Craft has been utilized to inspect the exterior of the reusable ETLV-2 before departure (MPCV: Credit: ESA).

Internally radiation shielding two levels of the DSH habitat area within an SLS derived habitat, above and
below, with 30 centimeters of water within that same area within the
8.4 meter in diameter tank would require approximately 71 tonnes of
water. If the DSH is accompanied in its halo orbit at EML1 by nearby water/propellant depots for missions to the lunar surface then at least 30 tonnes more of water will probably be required to be sent to EML1 on an annual basis.

Internal configuration of a DSH microgravity habitat derived from SLS propellant tank technology. The pressurized interior inhabited by humans is surrounded with 30 centimeters of water to stop heavy nuclei and to mitigate the effects of major solar evens while also reducing radiation exposure for the crew to less than 25 Rem per year during solar minimum conditions. The airlocks are derived from ETLV propellant tank technology.

Supplying large amounts of water to EML1 could easily be accommodated by additional SLS launches. But since NASA currently has only 16 RS-25 engines in stock from the old Space Shuttle program, the number of SLS launch vehicles will limited to just four until until new RS-25 engines are in production from Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2022 or 2023. This means that an aggressive SLS program cannot really begin until 2022 or 2023.

Four of the RS-25 engines will be dedicated to an SLS launch in 2018 to test the MPCV (Multipurpose Crew Vehicle). Another four engines will be used by NASA for the first crewed MPCV mission beyond the Earth's magnetosphere. That only leaves enough engines available for two additional SLS launches until new engines are in production.

One SLS launch would be enough to deploy the DSH to EML1. But a the final engines available for one more SLS launch would not be able to transport enough water to appropriately radiation shield the DSH. This could mean that DSH deployment might have to be delayed until 2022 or 2023.

In previous articles, I have suggested that NASA needs to commit itself to developing a reusable single staged Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicle (ETLV) for crewed and robotic missions to the surface of the Moon, the moons of Mars, and to the Martian surface (with an ADEPT or HIAD deceleration shield). An essential component of a reusable ETLV would be an ETLV derived water/propellant depot (WPD) that would be capable of using solar electricity to produce LOX and LH2 from water. Serious funding from Congress for the development of the ETLV and the associated landing vehicles and orbiting depots derived from it should start in 2017, in my opinion, at a funding level of at least $1.5 billion per year.

An ETLV derived and SLS deployed water/propellant depot at EML1 near solar power station. The solar powered facility would be capable of storing up to 100 tonnes of water while also producing and storing up to 60 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant.

In 2020 or 2021, a WPD could be deployed to LEO with at least 50 tonnes of water using no SLS upper stage or 80 tonnes of water with an upper stage. At LEO, the WPD would electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen and then liquefy and store the hydrogen and oxygen within five propellant tanks capable of storing up to 60 tonnes of rocket propellant. The WPD would then self deploy itself into a halo orbit at EML1.

Once a WPD has been deployed to EML1 then private commercial providers could deliver water to EML1. Space X will be testing its new Falcon Heavy in 2016. Such a vehicle
might be able to supply 10 to 15 tonnes of water to EML1 per launch.
The ULA also has plans to develop a heavy lift version of their future
Vulcan rocket (the Vulcan Heavy) which should also be capable of
delivering 10 to 15
tonnes of water to EML1 per launch. So starting in 2020, commercial
launches could be used to deliver 10 to 15 tonnes of water per month to
EML1 (120 to 180 tonnes per year). Monthly commercial water deliveries will continue to EML1 until lunar
water manufacturing and exporting facilities on the lunar surface are
complete in the middle or late 2020's.

Artist rendition of Space X Falcon Heavy (Credit: Wikipedia)

Artist rendition of ULA Vulcan Heavy

Once the water has been delivered to EML1 and fairly close (within a few hundred meters) of the water/propellant depot, the WPD will rendezvous with the water tankers, extracting and depositing the water with WPD's water tank. The WPD will dock at an solar power station where it will use that power to convert
some of the water into LOX and LH2 while storing the rest.

After the DSH is deployed to EML1, the WPD will
also rendezvous with the DSH, transferring water to the habitat for
radiation shielding, drinking, and air production. Once ETLV spacecraft
are ready for robotic and crewed missions to the lunar surface, they
will be fueled by the WPD at EML1.

The last remaining engines from the Shuttle era can then be used to launch the MPCV to EML1, testing the ability of the SLS to deliver astronauts safely to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points while also checking out the integrity and functionality of the Deep Space Habitat.

Since long periods of time under
microgravity conditions is inherently
deleterious to human health, time aboard the DSH at EML1 should be constrained. For astronauts over the age of 40, the most vulnerable astronauts to microgravity visual damage, I'd limit missions confined to microgravity environments to only 16 days. For astronauts under the age of 40, I'd limit the stay at EML1 to less than 31 days. Such short stays at EML1
would ensure that the astronauts would not receive enough radiation
in the DSH to prevent them from participating in future interplanetary
missions where they will be exposed to months and even years of cosmic
radiation bombardment.

While thicker water shielding for the DSH could further reduce
radiation exposure, it would also add substantial amounts of mass to an interplanetary
vessel. One of the goals of the DSH should be to replicate conditions for astronauts aboard an interplanetary vessel. So the DSH should only provided with enough water shielding similar to that of an interplanetary vehicle. And an interplanetary habitat only has to be shielded to a level that would enable astronauts to complete a three year
round trip to and from Mars and Mars orbit without exposing them
to more than 50% of the recommended lifetime radiation exposure recommended
by NASA-- which would be about 100 Rem for the least vulnerable passengers (women 25
years of age).

"The knowledge that we have now is but a fraction of the knowledge we must get, whether for peaceful use or for national defense. We must depend on intensive research to acquire the further knowledge we need ... These are truths that every scientist knows. They are truths that the American people need to understand." (Harry S. Truman 1948).